‘We’ll Do It Live!’: Live Tweeting Critical Summary, Vol 1.

For the subject BCM325, we have been asked to participate in weekly screenings of films that pertain to the subject material. We engage with these films through live tweeting, posting both our own original tweets and interacting with other classmates tweets. In this blog post, I will be recounting and critically evaluating my experience with live tweeting thus far this semester.

Image: deSingel

Week One: Metropolis (1927)

The first week of live tweeting proved to be challenging. The tweets that I posted felt as though they were surface level observations; mostly pointing out aspects of the film and its context that I found interesting.

Given that Metropolis is a silent film, it was difficult to focus on the story while also engaging with the tweets posted by my classmates. I found that I would often miss key themes and story elements by reading the tweets on my timeline. Conversely, I would pick up on plot points that I missed through reading those tweets. These tweets provided more of an analysis of these plot points, which allowed me to further understand the themes of the film.

Additionally, I found it difficult to conduct research about the film during the screening, as I couldn’t simultaneously focus on reading articles and watching the film. As a result, I felt that my tweets this week weren’t as structured and insightful as they could have been.

Although my tweets didn’t feel as in-depth as the tweets of my peers, I received replies that further elaborated on my ideas. This allowed me to engage with the film and my peers in a more meaningful way.

Image: Tablet Magazine

Week Two: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

This week, I made sure to conduct research about the film prior to the screening. I drafted several tweets focusing on important elements of the film that I was able to gain further insight on through reading articles. For example, this tweet highlighting one of the defining features of the film; the score.

By doing this I was able to pay more attention to the film and interact more with my peers, as I wasn’t trying to look up articles during the screening. I was also able to spend more time researching and reading through articles that I thought were relevant to the live tweeting experience, which meant that I didn’t feel pressured to find content to tweet within the time frame of the film. Fortunately, I had already seen 2001: A Space Odyssey, so I had a general idea of themes I could research and plot points I could discuss; making draft tweeting far easier this week.

As a result, I was able to focus on the film itself and generate tweets that were directly responding to moments in the film. This tweet, for example, was in relation to the scene where Hal sings ‘Daisy Bell’.

Image: Fiction Machine

Week Three: Westworld (1973)

Unlike the past two screenings, I had not seen Westworld (1973), nor the television remake. Hence, drafting tweets prior to the screening was difficult as I had no knowledge of the film’s plot or themes. The background research I conducted mostly included interesting facts about the film so as to avoid any major spoilers. 

The knowledge that I gained through prior research allowed me to respond to others with facts that elaborate on their tweets.

As this was the third screening, I had begun to see similarities between not only key plot points, but perhaps the context in which the film was created. Although potentially incorrect, I attempted to examine how filmmakers at the time were projecting their view of the future. Seeing as this was the first screening that was not a film I had already watched, I felt more comfortable connecting to the subject material by relating it to a film I was familiar with; that being 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Image: Story Grid

Week Four: Blade Runner (1982)

Blade Runner was a similar live tweeting experience to Westworld, as I had also not seen this film. While I knew of it’s cultural significance, I had no idea what the film was actually about or how it related to the subject content. This resulted in a similar debacle where I didn’t want the film spoiled entirely, but still wanted to conduct background research.

While I had several drafted tweets and made some observations about the film, most of my engagement this week was through retweeting.

My tweets this week could have been stronger. Although I was able to extend my thoughts through my responses, I felt as though my peers gave far more in-depth insights into the film. 

This is definitely an aspect of live tweeting I hope to improve over the next few screening sessions as the connection between the films and the BCM325 subject material becomes clearer. 

Image: NewStatesman

Week Five: Ghost in the Shell (1995)

This week I aimed to improve my inclusion of the lecture content. As I had completed a majority of this blog post by the screening this week, I attempted to use my self-reflection towards improving my live tweeting. I conducted prior background research that focused on topics that were discussed in the week five lecture. 

While I achieved this to a certain extent, the inclusion of lecture content in my live tweeting continues to be my main area for improvement, as evident by the lack of lecture discussion in weeks 1-4. I also attempted to focus more of my tweets on analysing the themes of the film, which included deep insights about the philosophy of what it means to be human.

By steering my background research towards the topics discussed in the lectures, and how these topics relate to the film, I should improve my tweets immensely. I also aim to practice connecting key plot points and themes to the lecture content during the screening. As we progress through the semester, I will continue to focus my live-tweeting practices on improving in these areas, which will hopefully lead to higher quality tweets in my next self-reflection post.

Say ‘No’ to Peer Pressure, and ‘Yes’ to Peer Commentary, Vol. 1

A few weeks ago, my peers and I posted our digital artifact pitches for BCM325. Over this time, I personally have come to realise how my project could be improved. I came to this realisation through feedback from my tutor and our progression through the course material, as well as my own rumination. 

As a part of our assessment, we are required to comment and give advice on 3 of our peers pitches. By analysing their project pitches and having to come up with feedback, I have further realised aspects of my DA that I didn’t consider, as well as areas that need to be revised. I will go through these as I go over the pitches I commented on.

Comment One

My first comment was on Emma Jenkin’s pitch – Chae Media’s Future. Chae is Emma’s company that she created with two other partners, Chelsea and Hannah, as mentioned in her video. Chae is a company that aims to “help those who need a helping hand” in areas such as student lifestyle, wellness, food, art, etc. Emma and her co-founders intend to create a podcast about the future of Chae as pertaining to their 5 year business plan. Their podcast will cover topics related to the BCM325 subject, such as the screenings and lecture topics, as well as topics that discuss aspects of their company.

I struggled to come up with feedback for this pitch presentation, as it was clear that their business is already established and has a following on several social media platforms (i.e. Instagram and Tiktok). My comment could have included more feedback on how they can deliver their podcast effectively, so it can gain more of an audience. 

As I stated in my comment, I don’t know anything about running a small business, nor how to grow and establish one. The research that I included in my comment was an article that laid out several business goals that might be ideal in the first year of establishing a small business. My reasoning behind this was to provide guidance and possibly some inspiration for goals as they create their 5 year business plan. The second research link that I included was how to remain adaptive and the competitive benefits that this has for a business. This was my interpretation of the possible futures segment of the ‘multiple futures lecture’ that I believe would benefit their business, as it is important to consider many possible obstacles that they could face and account for these in the business plan.

Comment Two

My second peer comment was on Taylah Ide-Miller’s pitch – The Future of the Film Industry. Taylah intends to create a 15-20 minute video essay centred around how the film industry will evolve, specifically in regards to remakes. She also wanted to explore which major film company is predicted to produce a lot of these remakes.

As this DA concept is similar to mine, albeit different as we are focusing on other areas of the film industry, I applied a bit more personal interest in this comment. My comment included more questions that she could potentially pose in her video essay, allowing her to explore more aspects of how films will be remade in the future. This line of questioning was inspired by the 6th purpose of future studies, ‘Interpreting the past and orienting the present’, as discussed in the week 4 lecture. Remaking a film is a great way to examine how historical values have changed, as certain aspects of the past film will be re-evaluated in order to reflect the current societal values, ultimately projecting how we want the future to progress.

The first article that I included pertains to the questions that I asked in my comment. The article is about films that include discussions of gender identity, disability, race, etc. being remade and how these topics of discussion are transformed or even subverted. The article itself is behind a paywall, however the abstract contains a lot of information about the direction of the article. The references below the article also provide many more resources that support the research. The second article I included was more about the current state of film mediums and what this means for the future of the industry. I did this to provide a different perspective on why the film industry may change and how it might do so. 

I misspoke in my comment, she is only doing one video essay, but she is segmenting her video in order to make the content she’s covering easier to digest.

Comment Three

My final comment was on Alina Hager’s pitch – The Future of Marketing. Alina aims to produce a blog mini-series, consisting of 7 posts, that also include podcasts. These blog posts will be about the future of the marketing industry and will discuss specific topics, such as the use of AI in marketing and the potential of space ads. 

Alina’s concept was well researched and she included many references in her contextual post. With the research that I included in my comment, I aimed to find an article that she did not reference and that further explored one of the example topics she stated in her video. The first article I included was about the future of the marketing industry being shaped by the integration of AI. The second article I included was about where the marketing industry is predicted to be in 2030 as technology evolves and shapes how audiences are receiving these marketing strategies.

The feedback I gave Alina was regarding the promotion of her blog. I recommended using other social media platforms (such as Twitter and Instagram) to allow users, specifically her target audience, to discover her blog content and ultimately build a larger following.

My Reflection

There are several aspects of these pitches that made me evaluate how I’m going to execute my own DA. I gave more thought to how I will promote my blog series, as there were social media platforms that I had not considered, such as reddit. I also realised that I did not outline my target audience in my pitch. As my DA intends to touch on aspects of the marketing industry in regards to how films are marketed, Alina’s pitch concept has given me more ideas as to how I can further explore this topic.

In terms of my comments, I believe I provided good research that could help my peers develop their DA content. I posed several questions in each comment in hopes to encourage my peers to further develop their ideas and the overall execution of their DA’s. I struggled to provide a lot of feedback in terms of the assessment criteria, as I believe these pitches fulfilled the criteria well. However, this was an element of my comments that was lacking and has a lot of room for improvement. Additionally, I was able to refer to the lecture content to a certain extent, but I wasn’t able to connect my knowledge to all of the comments. I also believe I could have referred to the lecture content more effectively. I aim to improve these areas of my commentary as we move towards the Beta Assessment Task.